If you say it’s a shame if someone’s house burned down, you’re implying that you’d burn it down. A reasonable person could conclude that you’d burn it down. The oracle makes it quite clear that they are not going to kill you. You may or may not give them money, and then they will leave. You’ll only die if that would have happened anyway.
If you say it’s a shame if someone’s house burned down, you’re implying that you’d burn it down. A reasonable person could conclude that you’d burn it down.
The point is that a statement does not have to be a literal threat for a reasonable person to interpret it thus.
The oracle’s statement is logically equivalent to “If you don’t pay me in the next week, then you will die”. The oracle isn’t actually saying that they’ll kill you, but phrased that way any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat.
The oracle’s statement is logically equivalent to “If you don’t pay me in the next week, then you will die”. The oracle isn’t actually saying that they’ll kill you, but phrased that way any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat.
How about doctor’s “If you don’t go to a hospital and have a surgery, then you will die”—is this a threat?
How about doctor’s “If you don’t go to a hospital and have a surgery, then you will die”—is this a threat?
If the doctor would say: “I’m the only doctor who can help you with your problem and if you go to another doctor and ask him to operate you, you will die” he’s likely outside of medical ethics.
But let’s see we don’t have a doctor but have a person who claims to be a witch. She goes around and diagnoses that people have a “dark curse” and unless the person pays them money to remove the curse the person will die.
If that’s someone’s business model I don’t think our courts would like kindly on that person.
unless the person pays them money to remove the curse the person will die
The OP’s description doesn’t seem to imply that refusal to pay causes the death. The oracle is simply saying that there are two possible futures: in one, the victim pays the money and survives; in the other one, the victim doesn’t pay and doesn’t survive.
I guess the difference in our interpretations is what we take the “and” to mean; you seem to see it as denoting causation, whereas I’d say it’s merely denoting temporal consecution.
The oracle is simply saying that there are two possible futures
I think you mean “that there are only two possible futures.”
Which leaves me puzzled as to your point.
If I am confident that there are only two possible futures, one where I pay and live, and one where I don’t pay and die, how is that different from being confident that paying causes me to live, or from being confident that not-paying causes me to die? Those just seem like three different ways of describing the same situation to me.
The OP’s description doesn’t seem to imply that refusal to pay causes the death.
I’m rephrasing Lumifers example to a person who doesn’t work within the traditionally accepted medical field.
It makes no statement about how the causation works. That means a person who doesn’t know how the causation works can not sure that the oracle doesn’t cause it in some way.
If the doctor would say: “I’m the only doctor who can help you with your problem and if you go to another doctor and ask him to operate you, you will die” he’s likely outside of medical ethics.
Or the only doctor with access to the right experimental procedure.
The doctor is asking for money (payment for surgery) and saying the patient will die otherwise. So, what’s the difference?
Visiting a doctor means you’re consulting a medical expert and asking for an expert opinion. Properly speaking, the doctor is giving a prognosis that you’re likely to die, and is suggesting a course of treatment. Statements like that are part of the medical profession and can be reasonably expected in the course of ordinary medical consultation.
Now, if the doctor is abusing his position and trying to frighten the patient into paying for unnecessary treatment, then he could be charged with fraud. If he’s threatening to kill the patient unless money is paid, then that’s extortion.
The main point is that the doctor is an expert, is being asked for an expert opinion, has grounds for predicting the death of the patient, and is recommending a course of action that would prevent that death.
In the oracle’s case, asking for money and predicting the death have no clear relationship, The oracle isn’t receiving payment for services rendered. The sole purpose of the oracle’s statement is to frighten someone else into giving the oracle money while getting nothing in return. If the oracle decided to, say, charge money upfront to tell people when they would die, that’s a different story.
I’m sure someone can discover a loophole in the above. I’m a layman, not a jurist. However, even in real life there are people who get paid good money to find and exploit loopholes.
You’re walking down the street when an unknown woman approaches you. She looks at you carefully and says “I’m a doctor and you are ill. The illness is fatal unless you immediately go a hospital and have operation/treatment X. If you don’t do this, you will die.” Then she turns around and walks away.
I’d say that the main point is that the doctor pays a cost to help you, where a blackmailer would pay a cost to hurt you. If you never pay, the blackmailer has no incentive to hurt you and you’d be fine, but the doctor would have no incentive to help you and you’d die.
If a reasonable person interpreted as a threat, then for all intents and purposes, the question would be if you would pay someone $1000 if they threaten to kill you. I don’t care how the oracle phrases his statement, or how he proves that he’s an oracle. Whatever he does, it makes it clear to a reasonable person that it’s not a threat.
If you say it’s a shame if someone’s house burned down, you’re implying that you’d burn it down. A reasonable person could conclude that you’d burn it down. The oracle makes it quite clear that they are not going to kill you. You may or may not give them money, and then they will leave. You’ll only die if that would have happened anyway.
The point is that a statement does not have to be a literal threat for a reasonable person to interpret it thus.
The oracle’s statement is logically equivalent to “If you don’t pay me in the next week, then you will die”. The oracle isn’t actually saying that they’ll kill you, but phrased that way any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat.
How about doctor’s “If you don’t go to a hospital and have a surgery, then you will die”—is this a threat?
If the doctor would say: “I’m the only doctor who can help you with your problem and if you go to another doctor and ask him to operate you, you will die” he’s likely outside of medical ethics.
But let’s see we don’t have a doctor but have a person who claims to be a witch. She goes around and diagnoses that people have a “dark curse” and unless the person pays them money to remove the curse the person will die. If that’s someone’s business model I don’t think our courts would like kindly on that person.
The OP’s description doesn’t seem to imply that refusal to pay causes the death. The oracle is simply saying that there are two possible futures: in one, the victim pays the money and survives; in the other one, the victim doesn’t pay and doesn’t survive.
I guess the difference in our interpretations is what we take the “and” to mean; you seem to see it as denoting causation, whereas I’d say it’s merely denoting temporal consecution.
I think you mean “that there are only two possible futures.”
Which leaves me puzzled as to your point.
If I am confident that there are only two possible futures, one where I pay and live, and one where I don’t pay and die, how is that different from being confident that paying causes me to live, or from being confident that not-paying causes me to die? Those just seem like three different ways of describing the same situation to me.
I’m rephrasing Lumifers example to a person who doesn’t work within the traditionally accepted medical field.
It makes no statement about how the causation works. That means a person who doesn’t know how the causation works can not sure that the oracle doesn’t cause it in some way.
Or the only doctor with access to the right experimental procedure.
Here’s where jurisprudence gets fun.
The doctor is asking for money (payment for surgery) and saying the patient will die otherwise. So, what’s the difference?
Visiting a doctor means you’re consulting a medical expert and asking for an expert opinion. Properly speaking, the doctor is giving a prognosis that you’re likely to die, and is suggesting a course of treatment. Statements like that are part of the medical profession and can be reasonably expected in the course of ordinary medical consultation.
Now, if the doctor is abusing his position and trying to frighten the patient into paying for unnecessary treatment, then he could be charged with fraud. If he’s threatening to kill the patient unless money is paid, then that’s extortion.
The main point is that the doctor is an expert, is being asked for an expert opinion, has grounds for predicting the death of the patient, and is recommending a course of action that would prevent that death.
In the oracle’s case, asking for money and predicting the death have no clear relationship, The oracle isn’t receiving payment for services rendered. The sole purpose of the oracle’s statement is to frighten someone else into giving the oracle money while getting nothing in return. If the oracle decided to, say, charge money upfront to tell people when they would die, that’s a different story.
I’m sure someone can discover a loophole in the above. I’m a layman, not a jurist. However, even in real life there are people who get paid good money to find and exploit loopholes.
You added a lot of assumptions.
Let me rephrase the example to sharpen the point:
You’re walking down the street when an unknown woman approaches you. She looks at you carefully and says “I’m a doctor and you are ill. The illness is fatal unless you immediately go a hospital and have operation/treatment X. If you don’t do this, you will die.” Then she turns around and walks away.
Did she just threaten you?
I’d say that the main point is that the doctor pays a cost to help you, where a blackmailer would pay a cost to hurt you. If you never pay, the blackmailer has no incentive to hurt you and you’d be fine, but the doctor would have no incentive to help you and you’d die.
If a reasonable person interpreted as a threat, then for all intents and purposes, the question would be if you would pay someone $1000 if they threaten to kill you. I don’t care how the oracle phrases his statement, or how he proves that he’s an oracle. Whatever he does, it makes it clear to a reasonable person that it’s not a threat.